In a world filled with so much propaganda nonsense, it is downright cathartic to listen to two people with such a realistic grasp on reality.

“Neoliberalism isn’t alive and kicking but it’s leading a zombie existence.” Great line Radhika.

Thank you for spreading the truth in the face of gaslighting and wickedness in high places.

The neoliberal creed is that there is no role for the government in the economy, but the economy then owns the government.

Best economics show on KZfaq. Kudos to all.

Deeply grateful to Radhika and Michael for this podcast, been following since the first episode.

Excellent explanation of neoliberalism.. thank you 🙏

Michael's final commentary was very refreshing that the New Cold War has been about not to be subjected to the neoliberał agenda. The Old (original) Cold War had been about the old strugle between neoliberał reacation and Marxist socialism.

Health care is so berserk, you better just figure out how to promote your health with nutrition and exercise, and avoid health insurance, because it won’t protect you from bankruptcy anyway. Even with their HMOs and staggering costly health insurance, these companies are still intent on surpassing their profits from the preceding quarter, without concern for patients, and possibly some concern for share holders. There’s scant “care” in health care here. To realize higher profits, they’ll ration medical treatment, deny needed procedures, delay access to specialists, and substitute cheaper medications for effective ones, OR give you unneeded high priced medication and procedures if they want to pad the bill. It’s close to worthless.

Great to hear 2 people who actually know what they are talking about.

The flaw in Greenspan's model was the model, outlined in : "Princes of the Yen". The 2008 "Crash" was in fact a deliberate financial takedown following in the footsteps of the bank of Japan

56:04 the fire sector is the last vestige of feudalism.

It's a real privilege to have two giants of geopolitical economics lecturing us on what's what. Thank you 🙏🏼

Great stuff , love you both just one thing though, Radika "Give the boy a chance to speak" ho ho ho....x

Another episode please. Fantastic refresh and update of my 20 yo post-grad with Kees van der Pijl on Global Political Economy

"Your money or your life." Great line and argument by Michael Hudson. However, I would amend it to "your property" or your life, rather than "your money." Let me explain why. Keep in mind that the age of capitalist bankers came only after 1848. This was the triumph of the bourgeois revolution (1848) to create a commercial society in which (bourgeois) money and law rule together. Until 1848, the future of capitalism and socialism were both uncertain. The bourgeoisie as a middle class contended with the magnates and aristocrats, mainly. The masses of peasants and slave had barely yet started to develop amd organize on national-industrial lines, with two notable early standouts: Egypt under Mehemet Ali and Haiti under Toussaint Loverture. Socialism in Anglo-America had reached two high points, both in the 1830s: first, the mass Chartist movement in the UK and (far more radical) Jacksonian Democracy of the emerging United States after 1829. "Your money or your life," which is a great phrase and point by Michael Hudson, echoes the days after 1848, when honest gangsters ruled like Wild Bill Hickock and Jesse James. These men belong to the age of bankers and money after 1848. But for Liberals, whether so-called "classical" liberals or else neoliberals, there is something that comes prior to the age of money after 1848. The chief value for liberals is private property i.e. private ownership of the alienated and (later) perfectly mobilized factors of production (land, labor, capital). For private property, liberalism has a revolutionary jealousy. Liberals are often the very opposite of the bank-robbing gangsters of the later long nineteenth century. Liberals were men of constitutional principles which reflected a newly dominant form of society in which money rather than property determined ruling status. Liberals are just the opposite of the later industrial monopolists. For liberals, private property is the chief dogma for which they are willing to kill. Such liberals beheaded Louis XVI, and when the neoliberals first came to power in Chile in 1973, they did so through a military dictatorship which they would later reproduce through the Reagan-Thatcher revolution. Finally, to understand liberals in the history of political economy, the best book is an English novel, Middlemarch. The banker character by the name of Bulstrode is a socially unimpeachable servant of finance. He has a puritan past that comes back to haunt him. Obviously, the servants of finance have evolved significantly. Once they were frustrated puritans like Bulstrode, now they are sexually liberated political entrepreneurs like Javier Milei in Argentina (which, history will show, is geographically near kin to Chile, where neoliberalis first assumed formal political power, in a crusade that went all the way back to the 1920s.

Great talk, we need more episodes on neoliberalism!

If ALL people in the world knew and understand what money really is and how its "created " a big revolution would begin.

Thank you gor your intelligent analyses. ❤

Outstanding show, as always. Really appreciate your work.

Absolute gems of insights thank you 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻❤️❤️❤️💕💕💕

Thankyou guys. I've learned so much from you wise wonderful people. Again I personally thankyou so. ❤

Legends.

One of the best exchanges between Prof Hudson and Prof Radhika. I always wondered about statement regarding Industrial capitalism leading to socialism. Great explanations which could have only been evoked through great questioning. Over all i agree with the view that labor rights, welfare state, anti trust legislation, civil rights, affirmative action etc was a window dressing exercise to make capitalism more palatable (not to say that the reforms itself were useless, just that their driving motivation). And also, these reforms were undertaken under historic specter of communism scaring day lights out of capitalists so they allowed piece meal concessions. And with decaying power of communism to project power, there was sharp rightward movement of both liberal and conservative camps in the West which metastasized in neo liberalism and neo conservationism. And also, since 1980's we see gradual erasing of redistributive/class/welfare etc elements from public rhetoric. Also, i find it interesting to notice the effects of this sharp rightward shift in hitherto classical left, For example, in phenomena like wokeism, cultural marxism, genderism etc. where the role of left has been relegated to identity politics. Identity politics is an out growth of need inherent to human nature to strive for justice and therefore, a classless alternative to such causes is paramount to neoliberal project. Thus the arena for strife of justice has been brought down from class to biopolitics. Contesting the very essential biologically diverse aspects of human self. This is infact a great victory for neo liberalism with very unfortunate consequences for the group of people involved which have gained nothing but have become categorized, labelled, put under a lens and summarily subjected either to inane patronizing or abject ridicule and hatred.

Neoliberalism is very much alive and kicking. However it is coming under increasing pressure, greater critical scrutiny as its failings and contradictions become more apparent. It is also facing increasingly powerful challenges from without, in the form of China and the other BRICS+ bloc. But neoliberalism will not die without a fight, and it might yet take the entirety of humanity down before it is willing to concede defeat.

I enjoy the debate between you two. Intellectual feasts. Thank you

Here is what Michael Hudson has taught me, in my own words: Mainstream ideology has twisted the meaning of "free market" into the opposite of what the classical economists like Adam Smith intended. The classical economists defined a free market as free FROM economic rents (unearned income), extracted by feudal landlords. The classical role of government is to keep natural monopolies in the public domain and tax away economic rents to use it to lower the cost of production. This is done through subsidies for such things as public infrastructure, education, and health care, not raising the cost of living and therefore the cost of labor, as with neoliberal monopolistic privatization. Mainstream Austrian and Libertarian Chicago School neoliberals have no role for the government in the economy, leaving the market free FOR economic rents, extracted by monopolies and the banks (FIRE, finance, insurance, and real estate). Because the economy does not stay out of government, the result is rule by the rentier oligarchy, otherwise called feudalism. These two approaches, industrial capitalism and financial capitalism, are what the new cold war is all about, and it is the story of financial capitalism sucking ever more life out of once vibrant US industrial capitalism.

An astonishingly impressive and valuable window into the economic reality of humanity. I stand in awe of so much truth -- and with it so much hope. Never has the saying "you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free" been so powerfully demonstrated.

always must watch Hudman videos 2 or 3 times in a row to get it all!!!

“That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die.”

This is one of the best talks Ive ever heard. Thank you so much!

Perhaps you caught that news report about $7.5 billion in government funds for EV chargers doled out 2 years ago and no chargers installed to this day? A fine example of what you describe.

It's doing everything possible to remain alive. The election of Milei is one example.

love this series! great discussions always

Beautifully explained,Brilliant! 🌷👍

Thank you for another informative episode! I love to listen to you both.

One correction, Dr Hudson: Your money and your life.

I really appreciate this discussion on Neoliberalism (the root of most of our problems). A key challenge, Neoliberalism isn't well defined in the publics mind, thus people struggle to recognize it's toll on society. I wish Mr Hudson had opened with his second statement, instead he presented a defuse set of "beliefs" of Neoliberals. I believe Neoliberalism's foundation lies in privatization of the public domain and unregulated markets (oligopoly), "privatize the profit, Socialize the debt", as Mr Hudson pointed out in his second statement. I feel he should have opened with that in order to better define this issue from the beginning. This is a minor critique, overall great discussion by two experts, much appreciated.

Thanks.👌🏽👍🏽💯💓

Potential opponents of empires were murdered Kennedy Olaf palme, Rabin many more

6:00 brilliant 14:30 credit dependency 15:30 Ricardo pins all value to labor 24:50 26:00 industrial capitalism 33:00🤔

Even with loss of political power, there is still the result of the arch through the institutions" to cope with. It will take years to clean up that mess. Look at Yale, Harvard and Penn as an example. Take the FBI, CIA, DHS, DOJ, State department....

You guys are fantastic!!!!!

PLEASE do a follow up meeting!!!

Thanks for another very enlightening talk. Psuedo civic neoliberalism sounds like fascist economics.

Also, about industrial capitalism develop into socialism, i think that industrial capitalism could have only developed into what it did develop into i.e. Finance capitalism. The reasons for it are simple. Industrial capitalism is very labor intensive and thus engenders major conflict between labor and capital. The capital thus confronted with labor, has recourse to taking path of least resistance which is going into exporting of industry and going into finance. This is the ultimate recourse if the capital has to win in fight between labor and capital in industrial capitalism. It labor wins, industrial capitalism develops into socialism.

The Human condition, is the desire to remove a perceived oppression, the trouble is, creeping authoritarianism, comes to fill the void, our ultimate goal, is to conquer both, that is the battle

Thank you thank you thank you!

The whole basis of this discussion is mistaken. Liberalism either in its classical form or it neoliberal form are the norm of capitalism. Keynesianism was an exceptional form brought about by the unusual circumstances existing at the end of the Second World War. Thus, neoliberalism was just a return to capitalism's traditional mode in a new form. Thus neoliberalism will not die until it is replaced by socialism.

Yes, neo-liberalism changed the language of economics, thereby erasing from the record theories of classical economy or turning them on their head. Now, a new language has emerged globally, not simply nationally: libertarianism. And libertarian is is neo-liberalism and politically, they can both be referred to as fascism. And it is time that we too change our language for the words 'neo-liberalism' though academically correct do not resonate with the general public. Many think 'liberalism' has to do only with one side of the aisle of politics. but back to Van Mises, the idle of Barry Rothbard: "It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history." Ludwig von Mises

Also, not one successful revolution has been brought about and successfully sustained in industrial capitalist society, contrary to theoretical prediction. Examples are Soviet Union, PRC, South Korea, Cuba, Iran etc. which were mainly rural agrarian societies at time of revolution. Also, the development of industrial innovation in industrial societies has increasingly been to make people redundant through mechanization. Therefore, we have glut of excess capacity wi

Also, there are very good reasons why rural agrarian societies are better suited for revolutions-as supported by empirical cases. I think those reasons were missed in the original analysis. Also, in modern liberal democracies, all indicators of popular participation are higher also in rural agrarian states and geographic aggregates e.g. direct contact with representatives, time spend in constituency, calls to representatives, pressures for pork barrels, agenda/memorandum items/petitions etc with exception of only one indicator of voter participation only in some cases and that too largely because of geographical factors like polling booths spread out etc.

Gracias amigos .

Good stuff.

I have voted 3rd party because R & D are one party for 50 years.

Neoliberalism is anticapitalist? Thanks to Radhika for correcting this misconception.

Amazing video🎉

realpolitik is the realization of rentier political economy real in teh sense of real estate of foreign national resources

Thanks

Left and right unite against neoliberalism

There is sometimes a problem with Radhika's flow of arguement. She says ' I have to disagree sligtly with Michael'....and then starts talking about something completely different...

I wrote a definition of neoliberal and YooToobe deleted it.

Federal taxes are deleted/destroyed, and NEVER used to fund ANY Federal spending. It ALL comes from newly created $$ determined by Congress (or Parliament), in any country that has a free-floating FIAT currency (US, Canada, UK, etc.). State and local taxes ARE used for State and local spending (because they can't create US $$). The US creates the US Dollar, which is also the worlds leading reserve currency, and therefore, NEVER has to borrow US Dollars from anyone (the wealthy, corporations, or countries) to fund spending in US Dollars. State & local gov'ts can't create $$, so they need outside sources such as State and local taxes, and Federal spending Bills. The U.S. can afford ANYTHING in U.S. $$, including Healthcare, Housing, Education, w/ the only caveat being that the resources must be available to back the spending (e.g.Universal Healthcare would rely on adequate numbers of hospitals, clinics, equipment, doctors, nurses, other personnel, etc.), otherwise Inflation could/would occur from too much $$ chasing to little product. Unfortunately, the U.S. seemingly only wants to spend $$ on on creating and funding conflict around the world, while the global community suffers as a result, and the U.S. public experiences disastrous Infrastructure, Healthcare, Housing, and debt. Taxes exist for different purposes, one of which is to control accumulation of wealth, which leads to power. This clearly hasn't been done in decades, as the Capital Elite control most western governments/societies. You certainly should understand how a free-floating Fiat currency works. You & Michael make EXCELLENT points on everything else, though. Thank you.

Brilliant What are your thoughts on the FUTURE of the western countries....do an entire show. on this

If socialism is natural destiny of industrial capitalism, then industrial capitalism was in full swing in US and Germany in late 1800's and up untill 19 teens-what are some events that thwarted its development into its natural destiny of socialism? I post so much on this podcast because its my favorite podcast and i really enjoy the intellectual brilliance of both these scholars. I respectfully post questions and my thoughts to further the debate and improve my understanding. Thank you for this podcast.

I sometimes think this should be called the Radika Desai hour.

Many thanks, you explain difficult ideas clearly, which are fundamental to the Marxist political economy of Neoliberalism. You even touch on the concept of decline and transition to socialism (or decline without transition). In this regard, you seem to be saying that Neoliberalism is an attempt to save capitalism from socialism, e.g. privatisation, the move to de-industrialisation, via the export of capital, which is replaced by financialisation and rentier capitalism, as a source of profit, in order to by-pass the socialisation of production within the system; which is the precursor to social ownership. So the postwar welfare state, including the nationalisation of key industries (under state control, was just an interlude. After that it gets much more complicated! Another factor is that, since 2008, we see the revival of economic nationalism (cf. the 1930s), e.g. US v China, which is incom -patible with Neoliberalism, since it has to rely on the export of capital in search of cheap labour. You also mention. debt, in particular US sovereign debt, which is unprecedented and out of control, in order to pay for military spending and endless war, which are solely in the interests of the US hegemon. (The New Cold War, come Hot war, possibly WW3 and nuclear armaged- don. Can China and its promise of a fairer multipolar world prevail?) Then there is personal debt, which is also out of control, i.e. massive in equality, as a result of labour being paid less than the cost of production. This is made worse by bank debt and increase in bank monopoly, which leads to higher interest rates. Capitalism is a moving contradiction. So Neoliberalism is not just a zombie, it is tearing itself apart. The problem is a more atomised working class does not have the consciousness and organisation to overthrow it. To paraphrase Trotsky. It is not just the case of 'Where is Britain Going?' (as he saw things in the 1920s-30s). It is now a case of 'Where is humanity going?'

It remains the ruling ideology because it's the ideology of the ruling class, which is now the rentier-bourgeoisie, and not the industrial bourgeoisie or the general bourgeoisie of rentiers, industrial, merchant and petty-bourgois capital. As such its grip on policy will only be broken when the rentiers as a class are broken, which will take not only massive financial crisis as in 1929, but also ultimately guillotines as in 1789. Otherwise I think the likelihood is of becoming failed states and the cannibalisation of the state and society by monopolists turning into territorial balkanisation, pending either conquest by foreign powers, or some military and diplomatic process of re-unification that imposes necessary changes to the structure of ownership and distribution of wealth. Obviously a democratic socialist revolution would be preferable, but I don't see that real working class lefts capable of carrying off such a historical intervention exist yet, though they may emerge, especially if leftists who are currently divided into a myriad of largely ineffectual rival sects can overcome their fissiparous and monastic tendencies to subordinate themselves to the masses.

In their discussion, they didn’t say anything new. Even so, it’s good education of the basics.

Thatcher also said/quipped (in late 80s) that 'a CO2 crisis was the best way to usher in global communism' ie neoliberal tyranny. The climate crisis is a finance sector/neoliberal manipulation as bad as the oil companies ever were, and 'green tech' as destructive.

as a good communist i say, boycott all multinational corps. who are not werker collectives, or at least have substantial labour contracts in place. the same for ALL rentier and financial parasites.

⭐️💯⭐️

Will you guys discuss Fadi Lama book titled, "WHY The West Can't Win - From Bretton Woods to a Multipolar World".

Michael Hudson: Don't you appear frequently on Real Progressives or The Rogue Scholar?

Michael would you be Jill Stein's economic advisor if she takes off.?

What changed to make "The global age of capitalism" in the US where labor was valued to neoliberal financhialized capitalism where labor was reviled? I am guessing that at the end of world war two, we were thinking we were all one people [many of us] and that we valued our sacrifice during world war two. Needless to say, there were many socialistic programs during the war.

Michael is always fun to listen to but he should know there are too many lumpenproletariats. He will have to make some concessions to his ideas for people to take to them better for it is better to give than to receive.

4:30 am in San Francisco

Also, Prof Hudson's theorization that under industrial capitalism the capitalists would have wanted to keep education, housing, healthcare, transportation, utility supply etc in public domain so that they would need to pay less to labor over look various important preference sets of capitalist motivation namely cash preference and moral hazard. Even if govt pay for the utilities, the payment is coming out of the taxes paid by the capitalists. Therefore, to attribute such high foresight to capitalists seem a bit too much to me. Secondly, even if an arrangement is secured under which capitalists pay the taxes instead of wages for provision of public utilities, they would soon started having epiphanies about waste and bloat in the government and would lobby to privatize these domains to more efficient private sector. Thirdly, what would prevent the profit making opportunity of privatization of public utilities under a system of monetized liberal democracy?

Interesting conversation. A question: Would you not call Bidens IRA act and CHIP act babysteps towards industrial policy? I think there are even ideas to take similar actions in other industries eg steel, shipbuilding etc.

I'd say it's reaching the end of its life span, it's not exactly dead or on life support, but I'd say it's close. Countries still adopt this as it's economic model.

Neoliberalism as an economic model for the development of entire economies is dead. It is still efective in create economic growth, but only with the concentration of wealth in just a few hands. The last sanctions on Russia, just shown how the substitution of exportations can create more jobs and wealth inside the countries markets. On other economic realities, China state directed economy shown the effectivness too. Another mith debunked is the false premise that the markets tend to autoregulate itself. Neoliberalism strongly tend to create monopolic practices, weakness on the purchase power of the working class, corrupt the democracies changing them into a form of oligarchy -pushing the corporations agenda into the law making process- we are living this in real time in all the western world. Neoliberalism is the most or ultimate form of dehumanizing capitalism, where the greed is above the people interest.

I dated a man in 1978 that was an Austrian economics that he called libertarian but he abruptly left our happy relationship because he stated he loved me too much which frightened him as another person would affect him and libertarians can't have such a relationship as everything must be free market including relationship with opposite sex. I burst his libertarian bubble that he couldn't accept. Men cannot accept women as equal or their betters.

Oil supported golden age precipitating over consumption and climate crisis. Please comment

Neoliberalism is the other side of the neoconservative coin: Might makes right. Neo-colonialism might be an equivalent term: go abroad, destroy enemies' economies and steal their natural resources. It is not the 20th century nationalism causing wars, but rather an international global Hegemon US banking leading NATO and Europe (although the underlings can be sacrificed at any time as the destruction of Nordstream II showed) against the rest of the world (BRICS a belated response). Bidenomics embraces proxy wars while increasing military spending constantly; evidently there is no moral failure when funding genocide of Yemenis by Saudis, genocide of ethnic Russians by Ukrainians, nor funding Palestinian genocide by Israelis. Funding others' slaughters are now a (THE?) major component of US Neoliberal economy. War profiteering has increased as a global enterprise; as all Neoliberal projects, tax payer funding for private "success" and profits. If Neoliberalism was a "Super Free Market" system the US (and many other nations) would not be saddled with such massive debt, shared unlike wealth with the populaces of those countries. The "priming of the Neoliberalism pumps", particularly in 2008 and thereafter has produced a Neoliberal Casino Economy where the stakes to play are provided copiously by the government to the Rich (banks) and the winnings are not shared by the Rich winners. Neoliberalism is not focused on production, although exploitation of Labor is a given (in all economies today), but rather rewards risk-taking with no commensurate punishment for failure, funneling wealth to the top 'players' who can afford (with government backing) the Casino.

😮

Feudalism took thousands of years to die, capitalism took hundreds of years to die, neo liberalism took decades to die, libertarianism took years to die... Ideology is dying, as well as the global economy.

"Capitalism has never been about free markets. Capitalism has always been about hiding the fact that Capitalism is now in its senile monopoly phase. You keep talking about competition as if it's going to revive it, but it has always been about preserving the power of an ever-shrinking financialized monopoly capitalist elite". -Radhika Desai

*Dengism intensifies*

YT & the Goo Gulls show their displeasure at this content by high number of (bad faith) Ad breaks (completely unrelated to the content) that have a total viewing time more than double the video itself.

Neoliberalism and other classical economic models revolve around *Labor* as a prime component. Considering Automation replacing (manual) Labor, as well as AI replacing intellectual labor - isn't this debate an irrelevant relic of the distant past?

I HATE the term "neoliberalism". It is a meaningless word that was invented (by fascists) as a euphemism for what this really is: NEOFASCISM. What is "liberal" about neoliberalism? Nothing. What is "fascist" about the neofascist era we live in? Everything. Words matter. Get rid of this one.

6:32 smoke and mirrors? Language is smoke and mirrors. This period in history will be known as “the battle of euphemism“. Why? Apparently, words can mean whatever you want.

Ÿoou talk too much. Let's listen to Michael.

41:27 it would be nice if we lived in capitalism. However, we live in feudalism. Even if we did live in capitalism, it is not the fault of capitalism for all our woes. You should learn to blame criminal behavior, not capitalism. Capitalism is an idea, not a behavior.

She talks too much.

Libertarians are classical liberals, not neoliberals you guys are incorrectly blaming them when you should be blaming actual neoliberals who are Democrats and Republicans.

Radhika has to use a proper microphone, there is no professionalism in having room noise bounce around making dialogue that more difficult. Takes away from her, from Michael and from Geopolitical Economy and from the entire nature of being professional.

Z